Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
On 03/08/2011 08:46 AM, Olivier wrote: 2011/3/8 Michael Grosberg grosberg.mich...@gmail.com mailto:grosberg.mich...@gmail.com Debi Rapson drapson at mansd.org http://mansd.org writes: Can you point me in the direction of a list of places that actually use GIMP for photo retouching and graphics creation. Hmm. GIMP is not well suited for professional photo retouching - it lack the necessary CMYK color model (among other things). I'm not sure what the focus of your program is but if you're looking for real-world use I would look more into video game art creation or online content. Could you explain why retouching photos should be made in CMYK rather than RGB? Could you explain why retouching photos should be made in RGB rather than HSV/HSL :) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
or better yet: Lab? ;] Anyway CMYK is neccessary too... W dniu 2011-03-08 10:08 użytkownik Ofnuts ofn...@laposte.net napisał: On 03/08/2011 08:46 AM, Olivier wrote: 2011/3/8 Michael Grosberg grosberg.mich...@gmail.com ... Could you explain why retouching photos should be made in RGB rather than HSV/HSL :) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
We are not speaking about the same thing. The fact that you want to change some channels in some color model does not mean that the internal representation of images must be based on this color model. You need tools for generating a proper CMYK representation of you image, suited to your printing shop hardware, but that does not mean that the image you handle must use this representation from the beginning. RGB is the internal representation of the images. It's also a color model, not especially suitable for manipulating colors. Thus you need tools that handle the image in more convenient color spaces. When you define a color using the color chooser, I suppose you work in HSV, not RGB? 2011/3/8 Bogdan Szczurek thebod...@gmail.com or better yet: Lab? ;] Anyway CMYK is neccessary too... W dniu 2011-03-08 10:08 użytkownik Ofnuts ofn...@laposte.net napisał: On 03/08/2011 08:46 AM, Olivier wrote: 2011/3/8 Michael Grosberg grosberg.mich...@gmail.com ... Could you explain why retouching photos should be made in RGB rather than HSV/HSL :) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer -- Olivier Lecarme ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
Olivier olecarme at gmail.com writes: 2011/3/8 Michael Grosberg grosberg.michael at gmail.com Debi Rapson drapson at mansd.org writes: Can you point me in the direction of a list of places that actually use GIMP for photo retouching and graphics creation. Hmm. GIMP is not well suited for professional photo retouching - it lack the necessary CMYK color model (among other things). I'm not sure what the focus of your program is but if you're looking for real-world use I would look more into video game art creation or online content. Could you explain why retouching photos should be made in CMYK rather than RGB? Photo retouching is usually done by print magazines. It stands to reason that they would use tools that are able to work with CMYK. As for the other things... Modern Photographic work also relies on a higher bit depth. Photoshop is able to process raw camera input as opposed to GIMP which has to first convert it to 8-bit before being able to work on the image. There are also various selection tools, color adjustment tools and retouching tools (such as the healing brush) that work better in Photoshop. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
We are not speaking about the same thing. The fact that you want to change some channels in some color model does not mean that the internal representation of images must be based on this color model. True, it doesn't. You need tools for generating a proper CMYK representation of you image, suited to your printing shop hardware, but that does not mean that the image you handle must use this representation from the beginning. I agree, it doesn't have to, yet it is convenient to use such representation when the image is to be send to print house. RGB is the internal representation of the images. That's untrue. It's also a color model, I'm not sure if it's right to try to set apart internal representation and color model. not especially suitable for manipulating colors. I agree, but also it's easy to use in digital environment. Thus you need tools that handle the image in more convenient color spaces. Meaning: tools that convert image to different color space for the time of their application. Which, by the way, can be quite tricky step. When you define a color using the color chooser, I suppose you work in HSV, not RGB? In fact, most of the time I use CMYK color chooser. Choice of color model often depends on your notion of that model. I prefer to use the same color model in my chooser that is the color model of my image. Using e.g. HSV chooser for RGB image can be deceitful since some color values can be silently changed by CMS. I prefer to use e.g. Lab for color adjustment and after I'm done with my modifications convert image to destination workspace. That way I've got full control over things that happen to my colors during conversion. Anyway, I believe we should be able to use different color models used to represent color samples stored in images not because it's just a nice thing but because there's one silent assumption about every color model: every color model is bound with some workspace not necessarily bijective in regard to other workspaces. Best regards! thebodzio ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
On 3/8/11, Bogdan Szczurek wrote: When you define a color using the color chooser, I suppose you work in HSV, not RGB? In fact, most of the time I use CMYK color chooser. Since we got carried away from the topic anyway, I keep hearing users complaining about various bits of GIMP still not color managed, most notoriously -- filter preview and sample points. The latter is sort of critical to those who uses separate+ and/or CMYKTool after editing things in GIMP. That makes one wonder if it will be addressed in 2.8 or later. Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Michael Grosberg grosberg.mich...@gmail.com wrote: Olivier olecarme at gmail.com writes: 2011/3/8 Michael Grosberg grosberg.michael at gmail.com Debi Rapson drapson at mansd.org writes: Can you point me in the direction of a list of places that actually use GIMP for photo retouching and graphics creation. Hmm. GIMP is not well suited for professional photo retouching - it lack the necessary CMYK color model (among other things). I'm not sure what the focus of your program is but if you're looking for real-world use I would look more into video game art creation or online content. Could you explain why retouching photos should be made in CMYK rather than RGB? Photo retouching is usually done by print magazines. It stands to reason that they would use tools that are able to work with CMYK. If I may interfere :). In my work I use CMYK on daily basis and I think the question why photos should be retouched in CMYK is not the right one to ask. One could do that but it's not the point. CMYK is not needed because it's nice to retouch images but because it provides fine control over cyan, magenta, yellow and black color components in four color professional print. One could only relay on color management in print workflow, but oftentimes it's insufficient. There are (not so rare) cases when CMS doesn't yield expected results—I mean: conversion can be done all right according to theory but in spite of that it's better to manually decide how some colors end up looking like. Sometimes one need to add or remove some paint from reproduction before it's going to be printed. Example: you need to have nice black background. Most of the times CMS will try to simulate that with all colors while it's better to use e.g. just full black and cyan. Another example: you need to do some trapping. Sometimes it can be done in RIP but you need to trust that to RIP itself and print house. These are only a couple of arguments, leaving aside quite similar cases of printing with paints different than C, M, Y and K. Best regards! thebodzio ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/8/11, Bogdan Szczurek wrote: When you define a color using the color chooser, I suppose you work in HSV, not RGB? In fact, most of the time I use CMYK color chooser. Since we got carried away from the topic anyway, I keep hearing users complaining about various bits of GIMP still not color managed, most notoriously -- filter preview and sample points. The latter is sort of critical to those who uses separate+ and/or CMYKTool after editing things in GIMP. That makes one wonder if it will be addressed in 2.8 or later. I think that we could touch here a broader problem of system wide color management. I think leaving color management to every single graphics editor separately is a no-no. It just makes keeping color managed workflow somewhat a nightmare. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
On 3/8/11, Bogdan Szczurek wrote: Since we got carried away from the topic anyway, I keep hearing users complaining about various bits of GIMP still not color managed, most notoriously -- filter preview and sample points. The latter is sort of critical to those who uses separate+ and/or CMYKTool after editing things in GIMP. That makes one wonder if it will be addressed in 2.8 or later. I think that we could touch here a broader problem of system wide color management. I think leaving color management to every single graphics editor separately is a no-no. Oh, but you don't have to do it :) GNOME Color Manager already provides D-Bus methods to request stuff like working color space profile. Any D-Bus enabled app (and GIMP is one) can do that. For 2.8, however, simply fixing what's already there would be enough. (Albeit I heard from users who deal with DTP that they actually like advanced cms display filter: http://registry.gimp.org/node/24944) Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Bogdan Szczurek thebod...@gmail.com wrote: have nice black background. Most of the times CMS will try to simulate that with all colors while it's better to use e.g. just full black and cyan. Another example: you need to do some trapping. Sometimes it can be done in RIP but you need to trust that to RIP itself and print house. These are only a couple of arguments, leaving aside quite similar cases of printing with paints different than C, M, Y and K. There are use cases where direct control over the separated result to CMYK is desired, this is however the corner cases and not the generic sense, it is my impression that a lot of people are editing in CMYK without understanding color management at all, effectively circumventing proper color management to happen. In the few cases where you need to include text or vector elements on top (or embedded within) an image and want to ensure a matching color with the (adjusted) photo,. or do other things to avoid problems with registration problems yes I see this as beneficial. To edit photos in a device specific (or even geography specified least common denominator CMYK profile) by default is however in my opinion not good advice. Considering the use cases where fine grained control over the resulting offset plates/actual ink used for C,M,Y,K to be a subset of the more general cases where individual ink control is desired (spot-colors (including metallic, glossy and other overprints) as well as duo tone and more). This the direction I have encouraged GIMP to move in on the UI level. This distances it from color managed, photo retouching etc. In the foreseeable future I see GEGL as primarily aiming to provide the core to do color manipulation, processing and image processing in colorimetrically managed (RGB) color spaces; with almost enforced strict working spaces for the algorithms to ensure predictability. The ability to do separation to CMYK, spot colors and more with associated processing on such will most easily be done as abstractions implemented using a planar approach where each ink is represented by a graylevel buffer. /Øyvind Kolås -- «The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed» -- William Gibson http://pippin.gimp.org/ http://ffii.org/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/8/11, Bogdan Szczurek wrote: Since we got carried away from the topic anyway, I keep hearing users complaining about various bits of GIMP still not color managed, most notoriously -- filter preview and sample points. The latter is sort of critical to those who uses separate+ and/or CMYKTool after editing things in GIMP. That makes one wonder if it will be addressed in 2.8 or later. I think that we could touch here a broader problem of system wide color management. I think leaving color management to every single graphics editor separately is a no-no. Oh, but you don't have to do it :) GNOME Color Manager already provides D-Bus methods to request stuff like working color space profile. Any D-Bus enabled app (and GIMP is one) can do that. For 2.8, however, simply fixing what's already there would be enough. I didn't know that (obviously ;)). It's nice, but I've got a hunch that such thing should be placed lower than DM. My ideal would be even something placed deeper than display manager/X.org. I'd love to e.g. make my X theme using HSV or Lab color tuples. Also, such thing could take color management and color model support entirely of off applications shoulders. (Albeit I heard from users who deal with DTP that they actually like advanced cms display filter: http://registry.gimp.org/node/24944) Hmmm… I'm not sure of the reason of having that. Best regards! thebodzio ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Øyvind Kolås pip...@gimp.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Bogdan Szczurek thebod...@gmail.com wrote: have nice black background. Most of the times CMS will try to simulate that with all colors while it's better to use e.g. just full black and cyan. Another example: you need to do some trapping. Sometimes it can be done in RIP but you need to trust that to RIP itself and print house. These are only a couple of arguments, leaving aside quite similar cases of printing with paints different than C, M, Y and K. There are use cases where direct control over the separated result to CMYK is desired, this is however the corner cases and not the generic sense, True enough, but I'm living on that edge ;). it is my impression that a lot of people are editing in CMYK without understanding color management at all, effectively circumventing proper color management to happen. I believe, color management is one of the most misunderstood and non-understood subjects out there generally :). In the few cases where you need to include text or vector elements on top (or embedded within) an image and want to ensure a matching color with the (adjusted) photo,. or do other things to avoid problems with registration problems yes I see this as beneficial. To edit photos in a device specific (or even geography specified least common denominator CMYK profile) by default is however in my opinion not good advice. I don't see it different. Considering the use cases where fine grained control over the resulting offset plates/actual ink used for C,M,Y,K to be a subset of the more general cases where individual ink control is desired (spot-colors (including metallic, glossy and other overprints) as well as duo tone and more). I love that notion! I think of it similarly. Yet there's one thing in print specific color models that's notoriously neglected in color managed systems: image isn't magically put on some white (what is white exactly? ;)) universal material. Image goes through CtP (most of the time nowadays), machine and is placed on material of different characteristics. So, what is really needed for good color management is the profile of each of these stages, or at least whole process. Of course there are some standard profiles (e.g. FOGRA) but they all fall short when one is to use for example uncoated, dark red paper. I know, I know… egde case, yet as I said before I'm quite often on such edge :). This the direction I have encouraged GIMP to move in on the UI level. This distances it from color managed, photo retouching etc. In the foreseeable future I see GEGL as primarily aiming to provide the core to do color manipulation, processing and image processing in colorimetrically managed (RGB) color spaces; I also have high hopes for GEGL, but I'd rather have it use some more abstract color model for that. I know it's not so simple—maybe even undoable–that way, but I do like the idea of color model that has complete coverage of visible spectrum. with almost enforced strict working spaces for the algorithms to ensure predictability. The ability to do separation to CMYK, spot colors and more with associated processing on such will most easily be done as abstractions implemented using a planar approach where each ink is represented by a graylevel buffer. True enough, but we mustn't forget about target material characteristics when considering print (and soft proofing), paint printing order and their attributes (opacity among them too). Best regards! thebodzio ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Bogdan Szczurek thebod...@gmail.com wrote: Considering the use cases where fine grained control over the resulting offset plates/actual ink used for C,M,Y,K to be a subset of the more general cases where individual ink control is desired (spot-colors (including metallic, glossy and other overprints) as well as duo tone and more). I also have high hopes for GEGL, but I'd rather have it use some more abstract color model for that. I know it's not so simple—maybe even undoable–that way, but I do like the idea of color model that has complete coverage of visible spectrum. Using a color model with full coverage of the visual spectrum would be an extension along the lines of RGB and the responses of the human visual system/physics, entirely additive. Spectral processing is not similar to subtractive models like CMYK models needed for simulating print, mixing aspects, subsurface scattering, ink interactions and more (some of which are better indirectly modeled by ICC transforms backed by actual test-runs). with almost enforced strict working spaces for the algorithms to ensure predictability. The ability to do separation to CMYK, spot colors and more with associated processing on such will most easily be done as abstractions implemented using a planar approach where each ink is represented by a graylevel buffer. True enough, but we mustn't forget about target material characteristics when considering print (and soft proofing), paint printing order and their attributes (opacity among them too). All of these, like the simulation of glossiness or reflectiveness of metallic inks are things for the final separation/composite/simulation though - which very well can take into account both substrate and perhaps even an animated illuminant ;) Such soft-proofing would not be a space that GEGL itself would be doing processing in however, even though it might have op(s) to take the individual grey level buffers to create an RGB simulation to be shown on a display,. taking into account the RGB profile. Allowing the user to configure a largeish set of predefinable inks for separation and simulation/softproofing would possibly allow some very nice workflows in GIMP and other softwares using GEGL. Implementing the capabilities of doing such workflows is something that only can happen after GIMP itself has more naive initial support for storing its image data in GeglBuffers of higher bit depths. So if someone wants to play with, research and make prototypes for such a thing it would be a nice and welcome addition. /Øyvind K. -- «The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed» -- William Gibson http://pippin.gimp.org/ http://ffii.org/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Michael Grosberg grosberg.mich...@gmail.com wrote: Olivier olecarme at gmail.com writes: 2011/3/8 Michael Grosberg grosberg.michael at gmail.com Could you explain why retouching photos should be made in CMYK rather than RGB? Photo retouching is usually done by print magazines. It stands to reason that they would use tools that are able to work with CMYK. Please see my longer response about why doing this _in_ CMYK is usually wrong, premature optimization by using device dependendt color spaces if the result might go to many different printers, profiles etc. As for the other things... Modern Photographic work also relies on a higher bit depth. Photoshop is able to process raw camera input as opposed to GIMP which has to first convert it to 8-bit before being able to work on the image. Some of these are true, and GIMP is working towards lifting some of these limitations by migrating to GEGL. There are also various selection tools, color adjustment tools and retouching tools (such as the healing brush) that work better in Photoshop. These concepts do transfer to GIMP, and if one is generally empowering students with the ability to do manipulation on images.. teaching them how to do it with GIMP gives them both a skill and an option of a tool they can use without a fee; as well as have the freedom to improve in the other ways free software does. Pointing out that some things work better in Photoshop doesn't seem constructive in this discussion. /Øyvind Kolås -- «The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed» -- William Gibson http://pippin.gimp.org/ http://ffii.org/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Google Summer of Code 2011 - Project Ideas/Suggestions
On 2/13/11, LightningIsMyName wrote: I'm starting this thread to list ideas for Google Summer of Code 2011, for the GIMP project. Since in the last year collecting ideas was done partially by the mailing list, let's try it again this year and keep most ideas here. In 2009 and 2010 guiguru did GIMP related usability workshops that haven't resulted in a spec yet (the 2008 one has), but some useful material presumably is available: - vector layers and drawing geometric primitives [1] - unification of selection tools (no reports from it, IIRC) [1] http://blog.mmiworks.net/2009_07_01_archive.html Could those be GSoC projects as well? At least unification of selection tools could become a project to povide infrastructure for gegl based selection tools (or am I missing an existing one?). Another idea was, IIRC, an on-canvas iWarp implementation on top of improved gegl op implemented last GSoC for cage transform so that it worked out of cage. Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Google Summer of Code 2011 - Project Ideas/Suggestions
I could think of fully hardware accelerated rendering. Most modern hardware provides accelerated rendering and many tools could be speed up significantly. The CPU just doesn't scale well when it comes to current image resolutions and some brush types (smooth, smear, etc.). Also the performance to display multiple layers or adjusting them could be much faster. Just remembering my last work (a drawing), that i barely could finish, since it got very slow over time. Am 08.03.2011 19:21, schrieb Alexandre Prokoudine: On 2/13/11, LightningIsMyName wrote: I'm starting this thread to list ideas for Google Summer of Code 2011, for the GIMP project. Since in the last year collecting ideas was done partially by the mailing list, let's try it again this year and keep most ideas here. In 2009 and 2010 guiguru did GIMP related usability workshops that haven't resulted in a spec yet (the 2008 one has), but some useful material presumably is available: - vector layers and drawing geometric primitives [1] - unification of selection tools (no reports from it, IIRC) [1] http://blog.mmiworks.net/2009_07_01_archive.html Could those be GSoC projects as well? At least unification of selection tools could become a project to povide infrastructure for gegl based selection tools (or am I missing an existing one?). Another idea was, IIRC, an on-canvas iWarp implementation on top of improved gegl op implemented last GSoC for cage transform so that it worked out of cage. Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Bogdan Szczurek thebod...@gmail.com wrote: Considering the use cases where fine grained control over the resulting offset plates/actual ink used for C,M,Y,K to be a subset of the more general cases where individual ink control is desired (spot-colors (including metallic, glossy and other overprints) as well as duo tone and more). I also have high hopes for GEGL, but I'd rather have it use some more abstract color model for that. I know it's not so simple—maybe even undoable–that way, but I do like the idea of color model that has complete coverage of visible spectrum. Using a color model with full coverage of the visual spectrum would be an extension along the lines of RGB and the responses of the human visual system/physics, entirely additive. Not entirely along the lines I'm afraid. First of all it strongly depends which RGB we're talking about. Even if we take scRGB into account there's still some considerable parts of visible spectrum that can not be described by scRGB's triad. I know scRGB is tempting for it's quite broad and seems easy to implement in RGB dominated world, but I've got a premonition that using device agnostic color space would pay off more. But again–I don't know that :). Spectral processing is not similar to subtractive models like CMYK I can't agree more. models needed for simulating print, mixing aspects, subsurface scattering, ink interactions and more (some of which are better indirectly modeled by ICC transforms backed by actual test-runs). Some effects can be modelled that way (maybe even all). Other thing is if they actually are. Getting specific paper profile is most of the time undoable. Maybe something could be done in that matter? For example instead of painfully standard “color settings” dialog in preferences and “assign profile”, “convert to profile” options some new layout would work better? Maybe instead of going to a kind of “image mode” menu, we should go to “color workspace” menu with all available profiles listed there? The truth is that whenever we use color model that is unable to describe whole visible spectrum we are using some cutout of this spectrum, a working space. Giving an option to just convert image to “grayscale” or “CMYK” seems to blur that truth and IMHO tries to bury color management concept. with almost enforced strict working spaces for the algorithms to ensure predictability. The ability to do separation to CMYK, spot colors and more with associated processing on such will most easily be done as abstractions implemented using a planar approach where each ink is represented by a graylevel buffer. True enough, but we mustn't forget about target material characteristics when considering print (and soft proofing), paint printing order and their attributes (opacity among them too). All of these, like the simulation of glossiness or reflectiveness of metallic inks are things for the final separation/composite/simulation though - which very well can take into account both substrate and perhaps even an animated illuminant ;) Tempting… tempting… :) Such soft-proofing would not be a space that GEGL itself would be doing processing in however, even though it might have op(s) to take the individual grey level buffers to create an RGB simulation to be shown on a display,. taking into account the RGB profile. Allowing the user to configure a largeish set of predefinable inks for separation and simulation/softproofing would possibly allow some very nice workflows in GIMP and other softwares using GEGL. Yup! That's what I hope for too. Implementing the capabilities of doing such workflows is something that only can happen after GIMP itself has more naive initial support for storing its image data in GeglBuffers of higher bit depths. So if someone wants to play with, research and make prototypes for such a thing it would be a nice and welcome addition. I don't think that higher bit depths are more important for transformations than for storing color samples. If image is to be displayed, most of the time it'll end up being crammed into 3 8-bit values :). If it's about to be printed most often it'll be pushed into finite (and not so big) number of possible raster point sizes. I think transformations are really the things that are to benefit most from bigger number of possible sample values. Images of course too, but not everytime. Best regards! thebodzio signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Google Summer of Code 2011 - Project Ideas/Suggestions
I could think of fully hardware accelerated rendering. Most modern hardware provides accelerated rendering and many tools could be speed up significantly. The CPU just doesn't scale well when it comes to current image resolutions and some brush types (smooth, smear, etc.). Also the performance to display multiple layers or adjusting them could be much faster. I think it would be more of a wish for GEGL as the GIMP's engine of tomorrow ;). My best! thebodzio signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
On 03/08/2011 07:50 PM, Bogdan Szczurek wrote: On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Bogdan Szczurekthebod...@gmail.com wrote: I also have high hopes for GEGL, but I'd rather have it use some more abstract color model for that. I know it's not so simple—maybe even undoable–that way, but I do like the idea of color model that has complete coverage of visible spectrum. Using a color model with full coverage of the visual spectrum would be an extension along the lines of RGB and the responses of the human visual system/physics, entirely additive. Not entirely along the lines I'm afraid. First of all it strongly depends which RGB we're talking about. Even if we take scRGB into account there's still some considerable parts of visible spectrum that can not be described by scRGB's triad. I know scRGB is tempting for it's quite broad and seems easy to implement in RGB dominated world, but I've got a premonition that using device agnostic color space would pay off more. But again–I don't know that :). If all you want is a color space that can encode all visible colors, i.e. the entire CIEXYZ color space, RGB is fine. Transforming from CIEXYZ to RGB (and vice versa) is a simple matrix multiplication, where the matrix depends on the primaries and white point chosen. It's just that sometimes the RGB components will be negative and sometimes greater than 1.0, but each color that can be perceived by a human can be encoded in such a boundless RGB color space. If you want a color model that doesn't lose the information about the spectral power distribution of the stimulus, then RGB won't do, but from your reply above it doesn't sound like that is what you meant. / Martin -- My GIMP Blog: http://www.chromecode.com/ Why GIMP 2.8 is not released yet ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Google Summer of Code 2011 - Project Ideas/Suggestions
On 2/13/11, LightningIsMyName wrote: I'm starting this thread to list ideas for Google Summer of Code 2011, for the GIMP project. Since in the last year collecting ideas was done partially by the mailing list, let's try it again this year and keep most ideas here. In 2009 and 2010 guiguru did GIMP related usability workshops that haven't resulted in a spec yet (the 2008 one has), but some useful material presumably is available: - vector layers and drawing geometric primitives [1] I'm not convinced of the notion of vector layers. Sure they can be nice addition but I fear they'll end up being quite frustrating. I think so because to make them as ellastic and usable as in vector graphics editors one'd have to double such editor in GIMP. If one won't do that then there's a danger of whole tool being not much more than a toy. I'm not generally enemy of the idea, but I've got my fears and doubts if it hase to be done that way. I've got a dream about visual editing program consisting of different components, each taking care of one of presentation aspects with one underlaying rendering engine (target aware angine—I don't like cairo's “I don't care what's on the end” attitude ;)). Such program would load dynamically a set of editing tools if needed and only the needed. So if one's editing vector there'll be full blown toolset for that–no compromises, no implementation doubling. If one's to typeset a book, there would be loaded typesetting engine loaded with all controls available and so on. But I digress :). - unification of selection tools (no reports from it, IIRC) [1] http://blog.mmiworks.net/2009_07_01_archive.html Could those be GSoC projects as well? At least unification of selection tools could become a project to povide infrastructure for gegl based selection tools (or am I missing an existing one?). I think that could do some good :). Another idea was, IIRC, an on-canvas iWarp implementation on top of improved gegl op implemented last GSoC for cage transform so that it worked out of cage. I like that :). Best regards! thebodzio signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Google Summer of Code 2011 - Project Ideas/Suggestions
On 3/8/11, Bogdan Szczurek wrote: I could think of fully hardware accelerated rendering. Most modern hardware provides accelerated rendering and many tools could be speed up significantly. The CPU just doesn't scale well when it comes to current image resolutions and some brush types (smooth, smear, etc.). Also the performance to display multiple layers or adjusting them could be much faster. I think it would be more of a wish for GEGL as the GIMP's engine of tomorrow ;). Awww, well, come on over, baby, step into my time machine. (c) GFR http://git.gnome.org/browse/gegl/log/?h=gsoc2009-gpu Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
Øyvind Kolås pippin at gimp.org writes: On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Michael Grosberg grosberg.michael at gmail.com wrote: Olivier olecarme at gmail.com writes: 2011/3/8 Michael Grosberg grosberg.michael at gmail.com These concepts do transfer to GIMP, and if one is generally empowering students with the ability to do manipulation on images.. teaching them how to do it with GIMP gives them both a skill and an option of a tool they can use without a fee; as well as have the freedom to improve in the other ways free software does. Pointing out that some things work better in Photoshop doesn't seem constructive in this discussion. You are forgetting what the discussion is about, I think :-) The original poster asked, among other things, for examples of GIMP being used for photo-retouching in the real world. I replied that perhaps it was better to look for places that use GIMP for video game art creation, and mentioned some reasons why GIMP isn't, to the best of my knowledge, used by photo retouching professionals. I did not intend to discourage the teaching of GIMP, only to point the OP in a direction where they are more likely to find a real professional who uses GIMP. It is, as you said, completely possible to teach the basic skills using GIMP. But photo retouching isn't the only thing GIMP can do, and I don't see why the need to focus on it. What about web graphics? digital painting? Texture art? I'm sure the artists who worked on Sintel would amaze the students with their Gimping skills. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Google Summer of Code 2011 - Project Ideas/Suggestions
I really miss some basic vector functionality in Gimp. In my last works i used Inkscape and Gimp together. Drawing sharp outlines in Inkscape, exporting them to PNG and imported them into Gimp again, to work with brushes and colors. Basically i used Inkscape to create Alpha-Layers for accurate strokes. The exporting and importing was some kind of pain. Just the ability to create basic shapes (Bezier contours), would be a great improvement. It doesn't need to provide anything. But it should be as simple as the Polygon-Tool and the Node-Tool from Inkscape. That would basically all i would need. Opening Inkscape, drawing a simple Shape (outline), exporting it, importing it and then fill it in Gimp is not a comfortable way. Am 08.03.2011 20:23, schrieb Bogdan Szczurek: On 2/13/11, LightningIsMyName wrote: I'm starting this thread to list ideas for Google Summer of Code 2011, for the GIMP project. Since in the last year collecting ideas was done partially by the mailing list, let's try it again this year and keep most ideas here. In 2009 and 2010 guiguru did GIMP related usability workshops that haven't resulted in a spec yet (the 2008 one has), but some useful material presumably is available: - vector layers and drawing geometric primitives [1] I'm not convinced of the notion of vector layers. Sure they can be nice addition but I fear they'll end up being quite frustrating. I think so because to make them as ellastic and usable as in vector graphics editors one'd have to double such editor in GIMP. If one won't do that then there's a danger of whole tool being not much more than a toy. I'm not generally enemy of the idea, but I've got my fears and doubts if it hase to be done that way. I've got a dream about visual editing program consisting of different components, each taking care of one of presentation aspects with one underlaying rendering engine (target aware angine—I don't like cairo's “I don't care what's on the end” attitude ;)). Such program would load dynamically a set of editing tools if needed and only the needed. So if one's editing vector there'll be full blown toolset for that–no compromises, no implementation doubling. If one's to typeset a book, there would be loaded typesetting engine loaded with all controls available and so on. But I digress :). - unification of selection tools (no reports from it, IIRC) [1] http://blog.mmiworks.net/2009_07_01_archive.html Could those be GSoC projects as well? At least unification of selection tools could become a project to povide infrastructure for gegl based selection tools (or am I missing an existing one?). I think that could do some good :). Another idea was, IIRC, an on-canvas iWarp implementation on top of improved gegl op implemented last GSoC for cage transform so that it worked out of cage. I like that :). Best regards! thebodzio ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
On 3/8/11, Michael Grosberg wrote: But photo retouching isn't the only thing GIMP can do, and I don't see why the need to focus on it. What about web graphics? digital painting? Texture art? I'm sure the artists who worked on Sintel would amaze the students with their Gimping skills. plug mode=shameless There is, in fact, a whole DVD on digital painting by Sintel art director based around tweaked version of GIMP: http://www.blender3d.org/e-shop/product_info_n.php?products_id=122 /plug Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
Who said this could not be done in Gimp? Some examples of Works i created with Gimp that are under CC: Retouching: * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Snow_leopard_portrait.jpg (Original) * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Snow_leopard_portrait-2010-07-09.jpg (Retouched) * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MarineCorpsCompany_F-2-24_KhalidiyahSandstorm_2008.jpg (Original with wrong colors) * http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:MarineCorpsCompany_F-2-24_KhalidiyahSandstorm_2008_edit.jpg (Color Corrected version) * http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rana_esculenta_on_Nymphaea_edit.JPG (Original is linked on page) Drawings (may contain nudity): * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg * http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dojikko.png Am 08.03.2011 20:29, schrieb Michael Grosberg: Øyvind Kolåspippinat gimp.org writes: On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Michael Grosberg grosberg.michaelat gmail.com wrote: Olivierolecarmeat gmail.com writes: 2011/3/8 Michael Grosberggrosberg.michaelat gmail.com These concepts do transfer to GIMP, and if one is generally empowering students with the ability to do manipulation on images.. teaching them how to do it with GIMP gives them both a skill and an option of a tool they can use without a fee; as well as have the freedom to improve in the other ways free software does. Pointing out that some things work better in Photoshop doesn't seem constructive in this discussion. You are forgetting what the discussion is about, I think :-) The original poster asked, among other things, for examples of GIMP being used for photo-retouching in the real world. I replied that perhaps it was better to look for places that use GIMP for video game art creation, and mentioned some reasons why GIMP isn't, to the best of my knowledge, used by photo retouching professionals. I did not intend to discourage the teaching of GIMP, only to point the OP in a direction where they are more likely to find a real professional who uses GIMP. It is, as you said, completely possible to teach the basic skills using GIMP. But photo retouching isn't the only thing GIMP can do, and I don't see why the need to focus on it. What about web graphics? digital painting? Texture art? I'm sure the artists who worked on Sintel would amaze the students with their Gimping skills. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
On 03/08/2011 07:50 PM, Bogdan Szczurek wrote: On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Bogdan Szczurekthebod...@gmail.com wrote: I also have high hopes for GEGL, but I'd rather have it use some more abstract color model for that. I know it's not so simple—maybe even undoable–that way, but I do like the idea of color model that has complete coverage of visible spectrum. Using a color model with full coverage of the visual spectrum would be an extension along the lines of RGB and the responses of the human visual system/physics, entirely additive. Not entirely along the lines I'm afraid. First of all it strongly depends which RGB we're talking about. Even if we take scRGB into account there's still some considerable parts of visible spectrum that can not be described by scRGB's triad. I know scRGB is tempting for it's quite broad and seems easy to implement in RGB dominated world, but I've got a premonition that using device agnostic color space would pay off more. But again–I don't know that :). If all you want is a color space that can encode all visible colors, i.e. the entire CIEXYZ color space, RGB is fine. Transforming from CIEXYZ to RGB (and vice versa) is a simple matrix multiplication, where the matrix depends on the primaries and white point chosen. It's just that sometimes the RGB components will be negative and sometimes greater than 1.0, but each color that can be perceived by a human can be encoded in such a boundless RGB color space. Yes, but why use RGB at all if one can use e.g. XYZ from the start? So wide RGB would also require greater than 8 bit depths to work satisfactorily (HSV, HSL or Lab do quite nicely even with 8 bits per component). I think one consolation is possible backward compatibility with some other RGB spaces, but isn't BC a b**ch? ;) Besides there's a trouble of defining such “new” RGB workspace: what white point should be choosen and what primaries (all have to be defined in some absolute color coordinates BTW)? Whatever space would be choosen we wouldn't escape color conversions in color managed workflow, so while I'm not RGB enemy I fail to see the reason to stick to it especially since there are “wider” color spaces that are more intuitive to work with. If you want a color model that doesn't lose the information about the spectral power distribution of the stimulus, then RGB won't do, but from your reply above it doesn't sound like that is what you meant. No, I didn't, but still I think RGB “could do” since it's able to describe absolute color. Well… I don't know if my longing is good or not, or if that way is better—I'm just thinking aloud :). My best! thebodzio signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Google Summer of Code 2011 - Project Ideas/Suggestions
I could think of fully hardware accelerated rendering. Most modern hardware provides accelerated rendering and many tools could be speed up significantly. The CPU just doesn't scale well when it comes to current image resolutions and some brush types (smooth, smear, etc.). Also the performance to display multiple layers or adjusting them could be much faster. I think it would be more of a wish for GEGL as the GIMP's engine of tomorrow ;). Awww, well, come on over, baby, step into my time machine. (c) GFR buehhehehehe :D Best! thebodzio signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Bogdan Szczurek thebod...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, but why use RGB at all if one can use e.g. XYZ from the start? So wide RGB would also require greater than 8 bit depths to work satisfactorily (HSV, HSL or Lab do quite nicely even with 8 bits per component). I think one consolation is possible backward compatibility with some other RGB spaces, but isn't BC a b**ch? ;) Besides there's a trouble of defining such “new” RGB workspace: what white point should be choosen and what primaries (all have to be defined in some absolute color coordinates BTW)? Whatever space would be choosen we wouldn't escape color conversions in color managed workflow, so while I'm not RGB enemy I fail to see the reason to stick to it especially since there are “wider” color spaces that are more intuitive to work with. It is a matter of which well defined color space the operations desired provide sensible outputs. For some types of operations doing them in premultiplied linear light RGB is superior to doing them in sRGB, CIE Lab or other more or less perceptual spaces, for other operations the opposite is true. My stance is that the sliders on an operations should be predictable and always do the same thing for the colorimetrically absolute same color - whis is why the operations of GEGL request temporary working buffers in their preferred working space (this is where babl does the; optimized; conversions you correctly state have to happen) rather than blindly handling incoming numbers. The RGB space defined by and used by babl uses the same primaries as sRGB, and has well defined conversions to CIE Lab, Xyz and others. The preferred^Wenforced working space of some operations in GEGL might need some scrutinization and review, though for compositing; gaussian blurs; interpolation etc I think the current choice of linear light RGB. GEGL also does not support working in an internal 8bit or 16bit mode, it is floating point with high precision and additional headroom/footroom (wide gamut/HDR) for all temporary buffers, if the desired output is 8bit it happens when displayed or exported. Operations like for instance unsharp-mask does not work correctly if termporary results are clipped. /Ø -- «The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed» -- William Gibson http://pippin.gimp.org/ http://ffii.org/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Google Summer of Code 2011 - Project Ideas/Suggestions
- vector layers and drawing geometric primitives [1] I'm not convinced of the notion of vector layers. Sure they can be nice addition but I fear they'll end up being quite frustrating. I think so because to make them as ellastic and usable as in vector graphics editors one'd have to double such editor in GIMP. If one won't do that then there's a danger of whole tool being not much more than a toy. I'm not generally enemy of the idea, but I've got my fears and doubts if it hase to be done that way. There are, in fact, different proposal, if you read the page. Each of the three groups came up with a different idea. So there is not *one* way, but actually three ways for you to have fears and doubts about :) Oh dear! ;) I've got a dream about visual editing program consisting of different components, each taking care of one of presentation aspects with one underlaying rendering engine (target aware angine—I don't like cairo's “I don't care what's on the end” attitude ;)). It's what we, utter geeks, call a framework :) That adds +10 to coolness but don't let everybody know ;) Deneba/ACD Canvas was an attempt to create such one, but it was done on top of software started in mid 80s. Sometimes a whole week passes when I don't wake up in cold sweat seeing it in my dreams. Funny stuff… :). But seriously, sometimes it's good for somebody to try a thing that didn't work out last time. Because of that stubborness we're able to fly by airplanes nowadays ;). I consider idea of one flexible uberapp much more sensible and appealing than implementing wee bit of “alien world” in different apps—just seems half-solution for me. Best! thebodzio signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Google Summer of Code 2011 - Project Ideas/Suggestions
I really miss some basic vector functionality in Gimp. In my last works i used Inkscape and Gimp together. Drawing sharp outlines in Inkscape, exporting them to PNG and imported them into Gimp again, to work with brushes and colors. Basically i used Inkscape to create Alpha-Layers for accurate strokes. The exporting and importing was some kind of pain. Just the ability to create basic shapes (Bezier contours), would be a great improvement. It doesn't need to provide anything. But it should be as simple as the Polygon-Tool and the Node-Tool from Inkscape. That would basically all i would need. Opening Inkscape, drawing a simple Shape (outline), exporting it, importing it and then fill it in Gimp is not a comfortable way. Skippping back and forth from Inkscape to GIMP doesn't sound good to me either, but wasn't existing “path” tool sufficient in your case? Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to understand the task you were up to do. My best! thebodzio signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Google Summer of Code 2011 - Project Ideas/Suggestions
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Bogdan Szczurek thebod...@gmail.com wrote: I've got a dream about visual editing program consisting of different components, each taking care of one of presentation aspects with one underlaying rendering engine (target aware angine—I don't like cairo's “I don't care what's on the end” attitude ;)). It's what we, utter geeks, call a framework :) That adds +10 to coolness but don't let everybody know ;) Deneba/ACD Canvas was an attempt to create such one, but it was done on top of software started in mid 80s. Sometimes a whole week passes when I don't wake up in cold sweat seeing it in my dreams. Funny stuff… :). But seriously, sometimes it's good for somebody to try a thing that didn't work out last time. Because of that stubborness we're able to fly by airplanes nowadays ;). I consider idea of one flexible uberapp much more sensible and appealing than implementing wee bit of “alien world” in different apps—just seems half-solution for me. So do I,. and a framework that can make something like that happen is called GEGL ;) http://pippin.gimp.org/tmp/gegl-foo/ Buried in history of the GEGL repo is a GTK+ based UI with at various revisions both freehand painting with simple dynamics, as well as.. node based both bezier and spiro curve editing bits, integrated with generic layer filters and more.. it is/was not really that much code, but it was sloppy code thrown together with left-over pieces from a video editor. I am from time to time toying with resurrecting that project as a minimal thing show-casing what is possible to achieve. If I do get around to do that I would probably avoid doing it with C though, so it would be a complete rewrite and not really a resurrection. /Ø -- «The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed» -- William Gibson http://pippin.gimp.org/ http://ffii.org/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP vs Photoshop
Yes, but why use RGB at all if one can use e.g. XYZ from the start? So wide RGB would also require greater than 8 bit depths to work satisfactorily (HSV, HSL or Lab do quite nicely even with 8 bits per component). I think one consolation is possible backward compatibility with some other RGB spaces, but isn't BC a b**ch? ;) Besides there's a trouble of defining such “new” RGB workspace: what white point should be choosen and what primaries (all have to be defined in some absolute color coordinates BTW)? Whatever space would be choosen we wouldn't escape color conversions in color managed workflow, so while I'm not RGB enemy I fail to see the reason to stick to it especially since there are “wider” color spaces that are more intuitive to work with. It is a matter of which well defined color space the operations desired provide sensible outputs. For some types of operations doing them in premultiplied linear light RGB is superior to doing them in sRGB, CIE Lab or other more or less perceptual spaces, for other operations the opposite is true. My stance is that the sliders on an operations should be predictable and always do the same thing for the colorimetrically absolute same color - whis is why the operations of GEGL request temporary working buffers in their preferred working space (this is where babl does the; optimized; conversions you correctly state have to happen) rather than blindly handling incoming numbers. All of it seems reasonable to me :). The RGB space defined by and used by babl uses the same primaries as sRGB, and has well defined conversions to CIE Lab, Xyz and others. Docs state it as “scRGB”. I don't argue about well defined conversion to absolute color coordinates (every color model have them, I should think). My only concern is about 20% of visible spectrum missing from scRGB. If operation yields a color from that absent 20% of spectrum, that color have to be “pushed” into available space. That's the obvious. What isn't is how often it happens (are some statistics available?) and how serious is that for color reproduction? If it's less than a couple of pixels then I'm calmed down :). The preferred^Wenforced working space of some operations in GEGL might need some scrutinization and review, though for compositing; gaussian blurs; interpolation etc I think the current choice of linear light RGB. GEGL also does not support working in an internal 8bit or 16bit mode, it is floating point with high precision and additional headroom/footroom (wide gamut/HDR) for all temporary buffers, if the desired output is 8bit it happens when displayed or exported. Operations like for instance unsharp-mask does not work correctly if termporary results are clipped. I can only say that I back that up. Best regards! thebodzio signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Google Summer of Code 2011 - Project Ideas/Suggestions
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Bogdan Szczurek thebod...@gmail.com wrote: I've got a dream about visual editing program consisting of different components, each taking care of one of presentation aspects with one underlaying rendering engine (target aware angine—I don't like cairo's “I don't care what's on the end” attitude ;)). It's what we, utter geeks, call a framework :) That adds +10 to coolness but don't let everybody know ;) Deneba/ACD Canvas was an attempt to create such one, but it was done on top of software started in mid 80s. Sometimes a whole week passes when I don't wake up in cold sweat seeing it in my dreams. Funny stuff… :). But seriously, sometimes it's good for somebody to try a thing that didn't work out last time. Because of that stubborness we're able to fly by airplanes nowadays ;). I consider idea of one flexible uberapp much more sensible and appealing than implementing wee bit of “alien world” in different apps—just seems half-solution for me. So do I,. and a framework that can make something like that happen is called GEGL ;) I'm happy to hear that! :) http://pippin.gimp.org/tmp/gegl-foo/ Buried in history of the GEGL repo is a GTK+ based UI with at various revisions both freehand painting with simple dynamics, as well as.. node based both bezier and spiro curve editing bits, integrated with generic layer filters and more.. it is/was not really that much code, but it was sloppy code thrown together with left-over pieces from a video editor. I am from time to time toying with resurrecting that project as a minimal thing show-casing what is possible to achieve. If I do get around to do that I would probably avoid doing it with C though, so it would be a complete rewrite and not really a resurrection. Best regards! thebodzio signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Google Summer of Code 2011 - Project Ideas/Suggestions
Am 08.03.2011 21:07, schrieb Bogdan Szczurek: I really miss some basic vector functionality in Gimp. In my last works i used Inkscape and Gimp together. Drawing sharp outlines in Inkscape, exporting them to PNG and imported them into Gimp again, to work with brushes and colors. Basically i used Inkscape to create Alpha-Layers for accurate strokes. The exporting and importing was some kind of pain. Just the ability to create basic shapes (Bezier contours), would be a great improvement. It doesn't need to provide anything. But it should be as simple as the Polygon-Tool and the Node-Tool from Inkscape. That would basically all i would need. Opening Inkscape, drawing a simple Shape (outline), exporting it, importing it and then fill it in Gimp is not a comfortable way. Skippping back and forth from Inkscape to GIMP doesn't sound good to me either, but wasn't existing “path” tool sufficient in your case? Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to understand the task you were up to do. My best! thebodzio At first i have to note, that the usage of the current path tool in Gimp is a pain. Its really hard, needlessly complicated to work with. The behavior of Inkscape is way superior, even if it is not perfect. Also it is hard to manage multiple paths at once. I won't say that Gimp is missing a feature you could use for the same things, but i just don't want to use it, since it takes me longer to work with it as Skipping back and forth between Inkscape and Gimp... (not a good sign for useability) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] GIMP Developer Meeting #2 - March 14th 2011
Hello, The next GIMP developer meeting (users are also welcome!) will take place Monday, March 14th 2011, on 10:00 PM CET (GMT+1). The agenda can be found here: http://gimp-wiki.who.ee/index.php/Hacking:Dev_Meeting_14_Mar_2011 Right now, the main topics are: * Reviewing last meeting's decision * Serious discussion of GIMP's programming language * 2.8 - Get it out! Proposals for more topics to discuss will be accepted by replying to this email. The meeting will be in the same place as the previous time (gathering will be done on the GIMP irc irc://irc.gimp.org/#gimp and the actual meeting will take place in a seperate channel that will be announced on the main channel), at the same good hour :) Logs and summaries of the previous meeting can be found here: http://gimp-wiki.who.ee/index.php/Hacking:Dev_Meeting_28_Feb_2011 ~LightningIsMyName ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer